Welcome to any newcomers to our blog who have arrived by virtue of Diane Heilenman's piece. I am still slightly crossed eyed from reading the article and having a hard time understanding exactly what her objection is to our exercising our artistic freedom to create portraiture of our 16th president. Ms. Heilenman states that we have "misplaced truth in history and missed the line between history and art". What we actually did is simpler than that. We made some pictures of Abraham Lincoln! We made them the best we could and as believable as we could. We did them with the most sincere affection for our fallen president and made no claim that they were historical artifacts from the 19th century. We would not claim that because we are proud of the work and put a great deal of effort into it.
Ms. Heilenman has no problem with Marcel Duchamp drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa. To her, that is funny. To her, that is art. We could have drawn a moustache on a Matthew Brady photograph of Lincoln. Would that still be funny? Would that magically turn it into art? The famous portrait of Washington crossing the Delaware should never have been created? What is the difference? Oh, I get it: it looks like a painting and ours looks like a photograph! So paintings should look like paintings and photographs should look like photographs. Bring out the handcuffs. We are now to be reenslaved, 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
Enough of jousting. I hope you like the pictures we are creating of Abraham Lincoln. They are meant to show Lincoln in human situations for which there are no other extant depictions, e.g. Lincoln at table, Lincoln descending a staircase, Lincoln mourning a child. We are not illustrating history, but common human experience which unites people of today with our historical heroes.